The abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's notice-and-takedown process to silence lawful speech is well-documented and all too common. Far less common, though, is a service provider that is willing to team up with its users to challenge that abuse in court.

That’s what WordPress.com's parent company, Automattic, Inc, did today and we couldn’t be more pleased. Represented by Durie Tangri, LLP, Automattic has joined twolawsuits in federal court under Section 512(f) of the DMCA. Section 512(f) is the provision that allows users to hold people accountable when they make false infringement accusations.

After months of negotiations, Tom Wheeler—the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—thinks it’s about time for consumers to be able to unlock their phones without fear of breaking the law. He made that much clear in a letter sent Thursday [pdf] to the president and CEO of CTIA, the industry group that maintains a Consumer Code that most carriers follow. In that letter, Wheeler proposes a December deadline for CTIA to update that code to include meaningful unlocking provisions—or face FCC regulations.

You'd think a controversial publisher like Playboy would recognize the importance of respecting free speech. But when feminist group FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture created a parody site posing as the magazine, Playboy was quick to complain to the activists and their Internet service provider, May First/People Link. The crux of Playboy's complaint? The activists had used the Playboy name and logo.

The parody site was intended to raise awareness about the importance of consent and resisting what the activists call "rape culture." The campaign is funny, smart, and even educational. It was also immediately recognized by the press for the parody that it was.

According to Netanel, one often-overlooked aspect of the opinion is that the Court explicitly identified fair use as an essential “First Amendment accommodation” that cannot be disturbed if copyright law is to survive First Amendment scrutiny. In the process, the Court may have poked a hole in the already shaky constitutional justifications for anti-user sections of copyright law.